Charter: Commission appointment process

[Paul Prince]

In the January 28, 2026 CRC meeting I was asked to create a council discussion thread relating to the CRC discussion on their perceived issues with our existing process for appointing members to boards and commissions.

In summary, our existing process is this:

• Applications for citizen boards/commissions ("boards" in following comments) are due to the city around the time of the annual election.
• At the first council meeting following elections, all liaison assignments are made. The liaison for each board then evaluates applicants and brings in his/her recommendation for who to appoint for all vacant seats at a subsequent council meeting.
• These recommendations are *almost always* approved unanimously (there have been only a few recommendations not receiving unanimous approval and only one that was not approved in my 5 year history on council)

The CRC has expressed the opinion that this places too much authority in one council members hands to sway the makeup of a board or commission. They noted as an example that the recent P&Z makeup includes 5 new seats which were recommended by one council member (in this case, me).

Furthermore, our recent ordinance prohibiting volunteers serving on more than one of the BoA, BSC, and P&Z leads to potential conflicts when more than one liaison wants to appoint the same person to their board.

Various ideas for how to address this have been discussed by the CRC. These include:

1. All boards be appointed in a process of one appointee per council member (This is problematic given that we currently have two year terms on boards, leading to usually having just 3 or 4 seats under consideration)
2. Vote on appointment of individuals per seat rather than as a slate. (This could lead to significantly extending the time needed to make appointments but could allow for better debate on individual concerns)
3. Have the mayor recommend all appointments (this is done in another texas city but the CRC strongly disliked this approach)
4. Have more than one council member, or a council sub-committee, be responsible for reviewing applicants and making appointment recommendations.

I will note that with our current Charter Review Committee we essentially used #4, as council appointed two council members (Mr. Saum and me) and the two of us jointly evaluated applicants and made a recommendation to council for appointment.

My suggestion on this would be to have our three "Commission" liaisons (BoA, BSC, and P&Z) jointly recommend the appointments to those 3 bodies, and have either:

• The remaining 3 council members make all other board appointment recommendations *OR* retain the existing single liaison appointment process for these "advisory" boards.
• The mayor would then not participate, or might retain the responsibility for Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) appointments under the current process

I do think this can be addressed by ordinance rather than putting it in the charter. Although, the CRC members like to point out that Ordinances can be changed at the whim of a new council and putting things in the Charter is a much firmer commitment. So....

 

[Norma Owen]

I want to express my strong support for your approach Councilor Prince. Structuring the appointment process so that our three Commission liaisons, Board of Adjustment (BoA), Building and Standards Commission (BSC), and Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z), jointly recommend appointments to those respective bodies is both logical and beneficial to the City.

These three commissions are quasi-judicial in nature and require members who understand the technical, legal, and procedural responsibilities inherent in their roles. Our Council liaisons to these commissions are uniquely positioned to observe attendance, preparedness, engagement, and aptitude over time. A collaborative recommendation from those three liaisons ensures decisions are informed by direct experience, multiple perspectives, and shared accountability.

I would also note a practical consideration that further supports this collaborative approach. In many cases, applicants express ranked preferences for service, and more often than not, the Board of Adjustment is not their first choice. Applicants frequently indicate Planning & Zoning or the Building and Standards Commission as higher preferences.

By working together as a recommending subcommittee, the three Commission liaisons can evaluate the full pool of applicants holistically and align individuals where their skills, temperament, and interests best serve the City. This allows us to make thoughtful, balanced placements across all three commissions, not simply filling vacancies in isolation, but strengthening each body collectively and ensuring we are placing individuals where they are most likely to contribute effectively.

For our advisory boards, I see merit in either of the following options:

• Having the remaining three Council members serve in a similar recommending capacity for those boards, ensuring balanced participation across Council; or
• Retaining the existing single-liaison recommendation process, which has provided continuity and efficiency.

Either structure preserves Council involvement while ensuring that recommendations are grounded in firsthand knowledge of each board’s function and needs.

I also support the Mayor either stepping back from this specific process or continuing oversight of Youth Advisory Committee appointments under the current structure, given the distinct mentorship and community engagement role of that body.

Most importantly, this framework strengthens transparency, distributes responsibility evenly across Council, and reinforces public confidence that appointments are made through a thoughtful, consistent, and experience-informed process.

I appreciate the collaborative spirit behind this proposal and fully endorse moving in this direction.

 

[Karen Van Ness]

I think this is an approach that will remedy the stated concerns about the commission / board appointments, while retaining efficiencies in appointments to the advisory committees. A few questions:

-Under this structure, will the recommendations for these appointments still come to City Council for review, discussion, approval?
-Is there benefit to acknowledging formally the role that the sitting chair of the three boards / commissions has in advising the CC liaison on appointments? While their advice should not be binding, it seems the chairs often do their own research and/or have a good sense of the volunteers who are being considered.

 

[Norma Owen]

Councilor Van Ness, thank you for raising these questions, both are important.

Per our Charter and ordinances, all appointments remain with the full City Council. This approach would not change that authority as I understand it. The intent, similar to what Councilor Prince outlined, is for the three Commission liaisons (BoA, BSC, and P&Z) to jointly recommend appointments to those bodies, with those recommendations then coming forward to Council for review, discussion, and formal approval. The Charter Review Committee agreed to formally recommend and place in the Charter this process.

I do believe there is value in acknowledging the role of sitting Chairs in advising the liaison(s). One related consideration is timing. When liaison assignments and commission appointments occur on the same date, Chairs are often coordinating with multiple Councilors, and Councilors are simultaneously coming up to speed on multiple applicants. This compressed timeframe can make it difficult to fully benefit from Chair insight and, if formalized too rigidly without addressing timing, could unintentionally create procedural challenges or compliance gaps with our governing framework.

 

[Karen Van Ness]

Thank you Mayor Pro Tem for the clarifications. Could we consider alleviating the compressed timeframe and adopt a process that allows more time for the liaisons to consider and coordinate on applicants, as well as obtain any advice offered by the chairs.

 

[Paul Prince]

Our practice during my time on Council, which I would advocate should continue to be used, has been:
1. appoint all liaisons for the coming calendar year at the first regular meeting of Council following an election.
2. In the next regularly scheduled council meeting (typically two weeks later) the liaisons (or in this discussion's proposal, the liaison subcommittee) would recommend their list of appointees for council discussion and approval.

I don't believe the details of the process belong in the Charter, just the policy that appointees to our regulatory Commissions should be jointly nominated by the associated liaisons.